HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 10513 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. Parul Bajpai, learned State Counsel for opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 14.08.2025 whereby petitioner holding the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector has been transferred from Unnao to Varanasi Zone. Also under challenge is the relieving order dated 18.08.2025. 3. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 4. It has been submitted that petitioner's transfer was required to be effected in terms of order dated 10.03.2025 (SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit) which in turn places reliance on the order dated 22.06.2017 which has also been brought on record as Annexure SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit. It is submitted that since petitioner's transfer has been effected in public interest, the factors indicated in the order dated 22.06.2017 were required to be kept in consideration. It is also submitted that since petitioner prior to his transfer has been posted in his current place of posting only nine months earlier, as such could be transferred only on the ground of misconduct and not otherwise and since there is no mention of any misconduct having been committed by petitioner, the transfer order is patently erroneous. 5. Learned State Counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that even as per orders relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner, there is no prohibition of transfer of Police personnel within a period of one year from earlier transfer. It is submitted Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dinesh Kumar, Nikhil Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Avanish Kumar (Pno-952431033) .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) that the provision of the order dated 22.06.2017 even otherwise would be inapplicable since the impugned order does not indicate transfer as a mode of misconduct. 6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that petitioner's transfer has been effected in public interest. Reliance placed on the order dated 22.06.2017 does not indicate any violation of conditions indicated therein. On the contrary in paragraph-1 of the order dated 22.06.2017, only the maximum period of posting has been indicated without any minimum period of posting being indicated. 7. Transfer being an incidence of service and petitioner being part of a disciplined force is required to adhere to the terms and conditions of his service conditions including transfer. 8. In view thereof, this Court does not find any good ground to grant indulgence. The petition being devoid of merit is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own cost. September 10, 2025 Satish WRIA No. 10513 of 2025 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench